Not for the first time, John Bolton has spoken the plain truth about the parlous danger to the free world and its ever more supine failure to confront it. He has told the Jerusalem Postthat time is running out over Iran and yet the US administration remains in deep denial, so much so that it is actively helping the enemy:

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons, the US’s former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective. As a consequence, Bolton said he was “very worried” about the well-being of Israel. If he were in Israel’s predicament, he said, ‘I’d be pushing the US very hard. I am pushing the US [administration] very hard, from the outside, in Washington…

‘The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous,’ he said. ‘Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time… We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily,’ he complained. ‘Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade… We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited.’

Indeed. The realist lunatics have taken over the Washington asylum, siren voices are pushing for further appeasement of and ‘engagement’ with Iran and other Islamists, and President Bush appears to be paralysed. History will judge him not so much for the mistakes made in Iraq but for the much more fundamental failing—that he would not exercise the leadership required to back those in his administration who had courage and vision against those who preached defeatism and surrender. It’s always about character in the end — and in the end the consequences will now be so much more appalling.

The most contentious element of the argument against the academic boycott of Israel by Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz in today’s Times (read the longer version here) is that the boycott is ‘antisemitic’. While I agree that the boycott is indeed an example of Jew-hatred, some of their arguments struck me as rather weak and thus counter-productive. For example, just because boycotts of Jews have indeed been part and parcel of historic antisemitism does not itself prove —as the authors suggest — that this one must therefore be antisemitic, particularly since it is targeted at Israelis rather than Jews as a racial or ethnic group. Indeed, the problem with using the word ‘antisemitism’ is precisely that it is associated with prejudice against Jews specifically as a religious or racial group. So people do not accept that the malice against Israel is anti-Jew — or, indeed, that it is malice at all —because it is against a state which, although Jewish, does not represent all Jews. Using the word ‘antisemitism’ enables them to say that since anti-Israelism is thus not a prejudice against all Jews, the word is being used as a form of intellectual intimidation to close down legitimate criticism of Israel. This is why the word ‘antisemitism’ is very unhelpful in this context.

But the fact is that there is indeed an otherwise inexplicable malice in the animus against Israel and that it does indeed single out Jews — but as a people rather than as people. It is in fact but the latest stage in the linear progression of Jew-hatred down the centuries, from theology to race and now to nation. And it is clear that it is the same thing, from key elements of continuity between Jew-hatred today and in the past far more fundamental than the tactic of the boycott. It’s the singling out that is crucial, the fact that Jews are treated differently from the way any other group is treated. It is a prejudice against Jewish peoplehood, denying to the Jews the right to self-determination and to defend their nation that is granted to other peoples and instead singling it out uniquely for a campaign of delegitimisation based on lies. The article finally makes at least part of this point in this paragraph, in which it observes, correctly, that the boycott is predicated on the defamation of the Jews:

The Jewish State, in pursuance of its racist ideology, is perceived as pure aggressor, and the Palestinians are perceived as pure victims. The PACBI boycotters and their UCU fellow travellers would deny to Jews the rights that they upholds for other, comparable peoples. They adhere to the principle of national self-determination, except in the Jews’ case. They affirm international law, except in Israel’s case. They are outraged by the Jewish nature of the State of Israel, but are untroubled (say) by the Islamic nature of Iran or of Saudi Arabia. They regard Zionism as uniquely pernicious, rather than as merely another nationalism (just as earlier generations of anti-Semites regarded Jewish capitalists as uniquely pernicious, rather than merely as members of the capitalist class). They are indifferent to Jewish suffering, while being sensitive to the suffering of non-Jews. They dismiss anti-Semitism as a phantasm exploited by Jews to pursue their own goals. They overstate, on every occasion, and beyond reason, any case that could be made against Israel’s actions or policies, and wildly overstates the significance of the Israel/Palestinian conflict in world affairs – indeed, they put Jews at the centre of world affairs. Many of these ‘anti-Zionists’ are either anti-Semites or fellow travellers with anti-Semitism; longstanding anti-Semites now embrace ‘anti-Zionism’ as a cover for their Jew-hatred. This is because, in relation to Israel, the anti-Semite finds a protected voice. The desire to destroy Jews has been reconfigured as the desire to destroy or dismantle the Jewish State.

The point about Jew-hatred is this. It is not merely a prejudice like any other prejudice, in which nasty characteristics are ascribed to a particular group and as a result people treat its members badly. Jew-hatred has certain unique features, which revolve around singling out the Jews for treatment afforded to no other group: scapegoating them for the misdeeds of others, holding them to standards which are applied to no others, systematically telling lies about them which are told about no others, displaying an obsession with them to the exclusion of all others, and irrationally holding them to be responsible for all the ills of the world — whether this be the fall of Man from God’s grace, outbreaks of bubonic plague or the rise of Islamic terrorism.

All these characteristics are on display in the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel by the boycotts and the rest of the obsessional campaign against it. That is why it is indeed the latest manifestation of Jew-hatred.

One of the most disturbing features of contemporary Jew-hatred is the availability on sale, in certain Islamic bookshops and on campuses around Europe, of the Tsarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That such a deranged and wholly discredited conspiracy theory about a purported Jewish plot to rule the world should be in circulation in modern western societies is an example of how the west is passively allowing the dissemination of material which is helping poison and inflame countless ignorant and impressionable minds and contributing to the current climate of medieval-style hysteria about the ‘world Jewish conspiracy’.

The EU is always banging on about racism, discrimination and the like. Nevertheless, not only were the Protocols published in French three months ago in Belgium but they were even briefly on display for sale inside the EU Parliament. To counter this evil, a month ago Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi, Director of the Transatlantic Institute in Brussels, sent a copy of The Plot to all MEPs and their staff. The Plot is a graphic novel by Alan Eisner which draws upon the history of this hoax. Dr Ottolenghi was subsequently astounded to receive a letter from the European Parliament saying it was refusing to distribute the book ‘due to the nature of its content’. When he asked for an explanation, he was fobbed off with conflicting excuses: they didn’t allow advertisements, the book had religious content, it had no relevance with the Parliament’s agenda. He has now lodged an appeal with the Quaestor in charge, Astrid Lulling MEP from Luxembourg (astrid.lulling@europarl.europa.eu). But so far, she has not even acknowledged receipt of his appeal — and from the rest of the Parliament, there is only silence.

So now can see just what the EU’s much-trumpeted espousal of anti-racism and human rights comes down to. It opens letters sent to MEPs — and if it doesn’t approve of their contents, it censors them and prevents MEPs from receiving them. It provides a platform for one of the most pernicious contributions to global Jew-hatred that has ever been published, which would thus appear to have ‘relevance with the Parliament’s agenda’, but refuses to distribute an antidote to it, which apparently does not.

Is this not a scandal? What are our MEPs doing allowing this to happen? And in Europe, of all places?

What’s happening? That most endangered species Sanity, has now been spotted twice on the same day. In the Sunday Times, Rod Liddle observes:

The Washington Post recently quoted the following from a scientist speaking in 1972: ‘We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.’ This chap, though, was talking about global cooling - which was the apocalyptic consensus 35 years ago. In the past 100 years or so the scientific consensus has twice held that the earth is definitely cooling (1895-1930 and then 1968-75) and twice that it is instead warming up (1930-60 and 1981 to the present). In almost every case it has been our fault and something has been needed to be done about it.

While Gerald Warner in Scotland on Sunday also tears into the, er, consensus:

Suppression of dissent is made necessary by the inconsistencies between the Greens’ propaganda and observed reality. Their claim that the polar ice-caps are melting and sea levels rising was contradicted even by the recent fourth report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which unobtrusively reduced its 2001 prediction of sea level rises by 52.7%, to preserve a minimal scientific credibility. As for the Arctic ice-cap, shrinkage has been observed - it happens seasonally - but its depth increased as it bunched up close to the Canadian land-mass. At the opposite pole, despite much-hyped film of the Larsen ice shelf fragmenting, the ice mass has increased by 8%. Temperatures in East Antarctica have fallen, which is what one would expect if the sun is the principal agent in climate change…

The CO2 hysteria is absurd, considering the minute contribution made by human beings. Of course the climate is changing - it always has done, hence the thriving vineyards of Northumberland in the 12th century and the Thames frozen three feet deep in the 19th - but human activity is largely irrelevant. The world’s climate is controlled by solar activity, by variations in the earth’s rotation and orbit, by external factors in space and, terrestrially, by clouds and volcanic activity. If the Canutes of the IPCC imagine they can control those elements, they are even more infatuated than they appear.

The Sexual Orientation regulations being tagged on to the Equality Act 2006 by ministerial edict aim to stop those who supply services, goods or facilities from discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation. With the usual duplicity it is argued that the new arrangements mirror what is already the law in employment and occupation, and simply prohibit treating people less favourably, as with race. Teachers will risk prosecution if they do not treat homosexual activity as useful and desirable as heterosexual relations. Offence is subjectively defined and given where someone feels that their ‘dignity has been violated’.

As Lord Tebbit remarked, this will inevitably ‘create not only a shadow… but a wide fear of persecution’: Home Office officials are preparing to identify schools which lack enthusiasm for rooting out ‘homophobia’ to be reported to the police, with ‘hate crime co-ordinators’ and reporting systems to be ‘marketed and distributed’ everywhere from GPS surgeries to shops to play schemes. With eight major statutes on gay rights passed since 1997, Lord Moran observed how sensitivity to homosexual lobbies has resulted in other interests and minorities being rebuffed. New gay rights were dictatorially imposed in Northern Ireland by executive fiat; avoiding primary legislation and any hope of amendment. The situation is little better in the UK — the leader of the Conservative Party has declared that he will support the measures.

The advent of civil unions has meant the term ‘partner’ replacing that of spouse/ husband/wife (so all are perceived to be in transient couplings of convenience), something now imposed on adoption agencies. The influential British Association for Adoption and Fostering, which provides training and advice, has long been as eager to further same sex adoption as it has been circumspect about transracial adoption — condemned in social work as a threat to black children’s cultural integrity. In BAAF’s ‘good practice’ guide to recruiting gay carers, the needs and interests of children hardly figure. It is not just asking for gays to have equal chances with other candidates, but making war on the ‘traditional nuclear family’ as something invented in the interests of colonial expansion, and not a way people actually live. Heterosexuality is ‘based on myths and stereotypes, and ‘gender is not biological’, but ‘a social, cultural, psychological and historical construct’. The external world is as unpredictable and illusory as the law.

While the heterosexual married family is treated with contempt, misgivings about homosexuality are characterised as a morbid fear to be fixed with reeducation sessions. Practitioners must ‘challenge’ the ‘homophobic assumptions’, of birth family and panel members, and children must be reconciled to having gay carers. All contravene guidelines about consultation. Consider if this were a black child being placed with white adoptive parents against his will.

Christians and Christian churches, schools, charities, printers and venues are directly in the firing line, since they are being coerced to provide services that aid and abet behaviours that conflict with their fundamental beliefs. The future of Catholic and Jewish adoption agencies is in the balance, and the withdrawal of public money will mean the end of their voluntary work with children and families.

The obliteration of all standards of right and wrong, true or false extends to empirical criteria and considerations. Might we expect some objective research on comparative outcomes for children placed with gay adopters? I think not. After the Bishop of Chester told his local newspaper in 2003 about research showing that some homosexuals do reorientate their sexuality (true), he was investigated by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service could not act since legislation did not then provide for specific offences based on sexuality. The counter culture neo-Marxists were right — the shock troops of gay liberation, in ridding us of the nuclear family, will sweep with it what the legacy of Western enlightenment meant by objectivity, in law or science, rationality or freedom.

Sixty years difference

Me in 1943 and Me in 2003

PRESENTATION

Portolani, known also as portolans, were early maps used by seafarers to find their way round the coasts of the Mediterranean. Because they were produced by draftsmen on dry land from the accounts furnished by medieval sailors they were not very accurate; but they were better than nothing and gave mariners some idea of the dangers to avoid. This site aims to chart some of the dangers facing modern navigators who must cope with even rockier costs.